You're All Conservatives Now

Dan Henninger had a good piece in the WSJ about the current intolerance on college campuses today.

Berkeley's [former chancellor] Mr. Birgeneau is famous as an ardent defender of minority students, the LGBT community and undocumented illegal immigrants. What could possibly be wrong with this guy speaking at Haverford??? Haverfordians were upset that in 2011 the Berkeley police used "force" against Occupy protesters in Sproul Plaza. They said Mr. Birgeneau could speak at Haverford if he agreed to nine conditions, including his support for reparations for the victims of Berkeley's violence.

In a letter, Mr. Birgeneau replied, "As a longtime civil rights activist and firm supporter of nonviolence, I do not respond to untruthful, violent verbal attacks."

Smith president Kathleen McCartney felt obliged to assert that she is "committed to leading a college where differing views can be heard and debated with respect." And Haverford's president, Daniel Weiss, wrote to the students that their demands "read more like a jury issuing a verdict than as an invitation to a discussion or a request for shared learning."

Mr. Birgeneau, Ms. McCartney, Mr. Weiss and indeed many others in American academe must wonder what is happening to their world this chilled spring.

Here's the short explanation: You're all conservatives now.

I guess students today feel like they have to protest something.

h/t Brad W.

Smart Guns are Kind of Stupid

This technology was developed in 1911.

The other day, Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress that he wished to "explore" the idea of smart-guns.

I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe. 

By making them either through fingerprint identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon. 

It’s those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis.

As an initial matter, smart guns are a stupid idea. You're starting with a firearm that is pretty basic and introducing another layer of complexity that carries additional points where the firearm can fail. The batteries could die, electronics aren't water-friendly, bio-metric scanners require a good scan, and probably wouldn't work at all with gloves. Radio signals can be jammed, and electronics just don't work 100% of the time like we want them to. If you can't trust your iTunes 100% of the time, do you really want to wait for your self-defense tool to sync up?

Aside from the fact that it's just a stupid idea, Holder's attitude really annoys me. His tone is dripping with the implication that the federal government will indulge us citizens our adorable little rights, on the condition that he can make our firearms safe enough for him.

Our basic liberties and rights aren't something that we "enjoy" like building model airplanes or cooking. The second amendment is serious stuff. It's the last stop check and balance against the state. Honestly, the nature of the firearms that a citizen owns isn't any of the government's darn business. Regulate some interstate commerce, and otherwise get out of the way.

If there are citizens out there who want to introduce another layer of modern technology into their firearms, and have some sort of Wi-Fi connection for their handguns, they're free to do so. There isn't a demand for a smart gun, so as always, this leftist idea is so good, they'll have to force people to comply.

As for me, I'll stick with the technology developed circa 1911.

Restaurant Owner In Clemson Doesn't Like Guns

Apparently, he doesn't like making money either.

As you may recall from my earlier breakdown of the new CWP law, bars and restaurants in SC who don't want patrons to carry concealed simply need to post a standard sign to prohibit CWP on their premises.

The legal sign you need to post looks like this:

That's the legal sign. In fact, it's the only sign that carries any legal force. Any deviation from this sign renders the sign ineffective. It's also pretty straightforward. Not a lot of editorializing.

However, the super-genius running this place in Clemson decided to post this sign:

Not a legal sign. Also, weapons-grade stupid.

Now, I have no problem with folks who want to prohibit carry in their establishments. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, it's all good. This guy is fine to do whatever he likes with his business, just as I'm free to go where I want - or not go.

The good news is this guy is going to get a very good real-world example of how the free market works. People on the left love to say that the free market needs to be regulated. Well I have a little secret for them - it is.

The free market is not regulated by a few people in some office in Washington, DC - it's regulated by everyone. My guess is that the free market in the upstate of South Carolina is going to deal with this restaurant, and this guy will either take this offensive sign down, or he'll go out of business.

On another note, where this guy goes terribly wrong is his intolerance about the whole CWP issue. I'm sure this guy is a stereotypical leftist who thinks that tolerance and diversity are great things -- except when your thoughts are not Approved Thoughts. There's no room in this guy's world for people who disagree with him on an issue. They're "losers" and "douche bags" not deserving of his tolerance.

This happens all the time with the left. Thoughts that aren't Approved Thoughts™ are de-legitimized and  mocked, but are never dealt with on the merits. For example, if you don't believe in man-made global warming, you're a "Denier" who doesn't believe in "Science". It goes on and on.

The left is all about tolerance and understanding until you step out of their Approved Thought Group and have an independent thought of your own.

But please, tell me more about how the conservatives are the ones who are so close-minded.

Firearm Terminolgy (As Understood by Leftists)

Assault Rifle: Any long-arm that “looks scary”. These should be banned.
Assault Clip: Any device used to feed ammunition to a firearm with a capacity of greater than one round. These should be banned.
Automatic Weapon: Anything that uses an assault clip, these should be banned.
Semi-Automatic Weapon: Scary-sounding because it is probably the equivalent of "Automatic Weapon" since it also contains the word "automatic". Use this word as much as possible with no explanation in order to scare people.
Common Sense: Any law or regulation that will infringe on the Second Amendment.
Cop-Killer Bullet: Any bullet.
Extreme: Any position on gun laws that is to the right of Fidel Castro.
Gun: An inanimate object that nonetheless has free will and moral agency.
Gun Show: A small, sovereign area wherein the laws of the United States do not apply.
Handgun: The cause of all violent crime; this gun has no legitimate purpose and should be banned.
High Powered: Any cartridge of any caliber that can be fired by an assault rifle.
Machine Gun: Guns meant to be shot full auto from the hip to kill lots of people.
Sniper Rifle: Any long-arm that is not an assault rifle. These should be banned.

 (h/t The Truth About Guns)

For bonus points, identify the model of this rifle: